Originally Posted by shintoki
We haven't had an increase in the average cost of a game for over a decade now. Alongside game prices dropping much quicker than ever before. While EA, Activision, etc has to invest far more than before for something like Battlefront.
Rather than charging more upfront, they've been picking it up on the tail end with things like lootcrates, DLC, etc.
I mean, even thinking back to like the NES and such, yeah manufacturing was a higher percentage of the cost back then, but when games were 40-50 bucks new back then, not only are we dealing with 25-30 years of inflation, with only a 10 dollar increase in the average game. The games back then were made with AAA dev teams that were SMALLER than many indy dev studios now. Super Mario World has like 18 people listed in the credits, for example.
Gaming on a surface level is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment out there, it used to be MUCH more expensive.
Originally Posted by dezzy8
Doubt it. We are still getting 60 dollar games without MTs. It's the greedy publishers that want to suck you dry. But you can't even be mad at them when people are okay with it.
(Yes, this video is 30 minutes long, you get the idea).
Is incredibly comaparable to
The former is why 60 dollar AAA games should not be a thing at all, the fact that they still can release them is a miracle, and it's BECAUSE of the other stuff that you claim is sucking people dry. Even though you can totally just buy that game for 60 dollars, play it, and opt not to spend more. Rail against the games that deceptively almost FORCE you to spend more, please (I certainly do), but just because something has loot boxes you don't need or a season pass, does not make it 'sucking you dry'